Standing Committee D

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Clause 103 - Road traffic: fixed penalty

Question proposed, That the clause part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Mr. Hurst, I welcome you back to the Chair. It is a pleasure to be in Committee under your chairmanship. I am sad that this is the last day that we are in Committee, but I am sure that my disappointment will be short lived and that I shall fill my days with something else.
 It gives me great pleasure to ask a brief question about the clause. It will ensure that section 76(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 makes sense. The subsection states: 
''No proceedings shall be brought against any person for the offence to which the conditional offer relates until the procurator fiscal receives notification in accordance with subsection (5)''.
 It is orderly that the Bill is repairing an error, but it begs the question why it has been allowed to be in place for 15 years, which is a considerable time, given that other amendments have been made to the Act. It relates to fixed penalties. I wonder what damage has been done to those who have been caught under that subsection. Why has it taken the Government so long to rectify the error?

David Jamieson: I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr. Hurst. We will approach the home straight of the Bill with sadness this afternoon. However, I am sure that that position will be assuaged by listening to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and possibly some of her hon. Friends for the next few hours.

Anne McIntosh: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has joined the Committee.
 Will the Minister accept that the record must be held by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who spoke for two and a half hours without imparting anything of any substance on Friday morning?

David Jamieson: I am sure that there was something of substance in that speech.
 The Road Traffic Offenders Act includes provisions that allow police forces in England, Scotland and Wales to issue fixed penalty notices and conditional offers for certain road traffic offences, such as failure to obey traffic signs and not wearing a seat belt. Fixed penalty notices and conditional offers allow the offender to discharge his liability for the offence provided that he pays the financial penalty stated. 
 The Police Reform Act 2002 amended the provisions to allow the British Transport police to 
 issue fixed penalty notices and conditional offers. The British Transport police particularly require the ability to issue conditional offers for traffic offences committed at level crossings, a matter that we dealt with earlier. In 2001–02, the police dealt with 3,792 offences under the Road Traffic Acts. In the previous year, they dealt with 2,760 offences. As we discussed under clause 66, offences at level crossings can be serious, and it is important that the British Transport police have all the powers of a local police force to detect and deter those offences. 
 A further amendment is needed to clarify section 76(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 so that it is clear when proceedings in England and Wales can be commenced after a conditional offer has been issued to an offender. Clause 103 therefore deletes the words ''of police'' from that section. 
 The hon. Lady was under the impression that that error had been in place for 15 years, but I assure her that it has been there for only one year, since the Police Reform Act 2002; that is why I emphasised 2002. Clearly, this is a good time to put it right.

Anne McIntosh: We would not wish to prevent the Government from amending one of its errors.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 - Shipping legislation: application to structures, craft, &c. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Committee will recall that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State tantalisingly told us:
''There is a difference between what is needed in relation to a large passenger-carrying ship with a professional crew and in relation to a man rowing a boat in a harbour. We will consult carefully on how best to deal with non-professional mariners.
The Bill contains a power to exempt vessels with reference to the power of their motor, size or location. We want to consult on the repercussions, as we need to get the matter right. None the less, we are minded, for example, to exempt rowing boats, sailing dinghies and narrowboats. However, larger, high-powered recreational vessels such as jet-skis would probably be included. We want to strike the right balance to ensure that we get the legislation right.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 774.]
 The Government have the opportunity, under both this clause and clause 77, to tell the Committee and the public which ships and boats were to be included, and we regret that they have not taken it. Current case law is unclear as to whether personal watercraft such as jet-skis or chain ferries are ships. I do not know what chain ferries are, although I know what a chain letter is, so it would be helpful if the Minister could satisfy me on that point. 
 In so far as ships need to be defined so that the alcohol provisions can apply, there is some basis for the clause. However, what would be the implications of the clause in the case of a collision between a jet-ski or chain ferry and another vessel? I understand that there could be implications even if those craft were not used at sea—they could be used in inland waterways. 
 That is set out in the explanatory notes to clause 104, although I have not had time to study them. What is the purpose of clause 104, and how will the Bill interrelate with other Acts relating to public health and the regulation of activities near the sea shore? 
 I am sure that you, Mr. Hurst, as a Member of Parliament for a constituency on the Essex coast, will agree that there will be many opportunities for people to enjoy jet-skiing off the Essex coast, although not necessarily out at sea. Clause 104 could have far-ranging repercussions. We wait to hear from the Minister about the implications.

David Jamieson: The change would allow the Secretary of State to extend shipping provisions to other structures and craft that currently may not fall in the category of ships for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts. As the hon. Lady said, that change could apply to jet-skis, which are small but can cause substantial danger and damage if they are mishandled. Jet-skis are already a popular craft and they are becoming more popular. Like you, Mr. Hurst, I represent a coastal area and I am aware that, with the growing prosperity under this Government, more people can enjoy such wonderful recreational activities.
 We want the provisions on alcohol testing for mariners to extend to jet-skis, in particular, in recognition of the potential danger that drunken users of such craft may cause to other water users. The clause provides a kind of future proofing for any other kind of vessel that may come along. Jet-skis, for example, have become popular in the past 10 to 20 years. The clause would allow the orders made by the Secretary of State to be flexible and specific where they are needed. It would also allow such orders to avoid conflicts with other enactments, which the hon. Lady mentioned. There is a patchy set of byelaws throughout the country that apply to ports and harbours and those would generally take precedence in such circumstances. The clause would cover the circumstances in which no law was in place. 
 The hon. Lady asked about chain ferries. I invite her to visit my constituency. A chain ferry travels from Torpoint on the Cornish side to the delightful constituency of Plymouth, Devonport on the other. Thus Devonport is connected to Cornwall, although some people, for example, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), say that Cornwall is thereby connected to mainland England. 
 The ferry is a large vessel that is pulled along by chains—that may come as a complete surprise to the Committee. The vessel pulls itself along on two submerged chains, by means of a gearing mechanism. I regularly dine with the captain when I travel on the ferry. It takes eight minutes to get from one side to the other and we have a bag of crisps together and mull over times past. I would be pleased to invite the hon. Lady to come to enjoy the delights of crossing the Tamar from Devon to Cornwall—I offer my endless hospitality.

Anne McIntosh: I am in grave danger of setting a precedent, but I formally welcome the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I look forward to my first excursion to his constituency and, indeed, to my first ride on a chain ferry. I am grateful for that generous offer. It goes to show that Committee members already know each other much better after such a relatively short time. Against that background, it is helpful.
 The only other point on which I hope we could have some clarification before my summer outing—

John Spellar: She is a fair-weather friend.

Anne McIntosh: The comment by the Minister of State is not fair. I have traversed the Dogger Bank on a passenger ferry in the most adverse weather conditions, arriving on the back end of a hurricane. I think that I am a tried and tested seafarer. The journey on a chain ferry would be quiet in comparison with crossing the North sea in the circumstances that I mentioned.
 The only point that the Minister inadvertently omitted to share with the Committee is what other exemptions might flow from the clause. A pilot of a sailing dinghy who has had one drink too many could be an obstacle and therefore a potential disaster to other shipping. Will the clause apply to ferries? For the purposes of applying the provisions relating to blood alcohol levels, where will the Government draw the line as to which craft—

David Jamieson: Witchcraft?

Anne McIntosh: Which ship, boat or recreational craft will be deemed to be a danger to other shipping under the clause?
 The clause refers to the creation of an offence and power is given to the Secretary of State to legislate by order. I notice that some 23 statutory instruments are mentioned on today's Order Paper. We are passing far too many laws by secondary legislation that is not subject to the same scrutiny by the House—even less so under the new hours. We would prefer to see more regulations included in the Bill and far fewer of the statutory instruments that the Government have a tendency to use.

David Jamieson: It may help the Committee if I clarify some of the points made by the hon. Lady. We dealt with the exemptions in part 4 when we debated clause 77, so the limitations have already been defined. The clause allows the Secretary of State to define the craft to which part 4 applies—jet-skis, for example. Our ambition is to listen and consult on the issue. From time to time in the Department we receive correspondence from hon. Members and the public about certain vessels on the sea and jet-skis have been a problem in recent years. Such views are listened to and taken into consideration.
 The hon. Lady asked what other craft might be involved. I am informed that the provision could apply to an oil rig and that the Russians have developed a craft that is a cross between a plane and a boat. As I said, future proofing ensures that, when appropriate, 
 the Government can respond with provisions that take account of new vessels.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful. I had not realised that an oil rig could be considered a vessel, but one can see why the provisions would be required when it is being towed out to sea by another vessel.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105 - Railways in London: transfers

Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in
clause 105, page 46, line 19, at end insert— 
 '( ) This section shall only take effect after consultation with organisations with responsibility for, or an interest in, London's transport and in particular the London Transport Users Committee which shall be renamed London's Transport Users Committee.'.
 This is a probing amendment to draw the Minister's attention to a matter of concern. The clause is significant. It ensures that the Government are not left in the embarrassing situation of tube assets being lost to the taxpayer if one of the public-private partnership consortiums becomes insolvent. We shall return to that matter during the clause stand part debate. 
 It is important that a range of organisations are consulted on clause 105. One assumes that organisations such as Transport for London have been consulted on the clause, but others such as the London Transport Users Committee may not have been. 
 Amendment No. 93 serves a dual purpose. Its second purpose is to flag up to the Minister concerns that the London Transport Users Committee has about its remit and role. LTUC's remit is to represent all transport users in London, which includes pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers, train passengers and so on. However, its remit also includes car drivers; there is a dilemma as to whether on an issue such as congestion charges the organisation can represent the interests of both car drivers and pedestrians. For that reason, the organisation would like a small change to its name, which is reflected by our amendment. The simple insertion of a comma into the name of the organisation—

John Randall: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to make a mistake: the amendment would insert an apostrophe and an ''s''.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The amendment would indeed insert an apostrophe. The move from the position of Whip to the Back Benches has clearly sharpened the hon. Gentleman's mind. The Committee welcomes that.

Anne McIntosh: It is a drafting error.

Tom Brake: The hon. Lady will see that the amendment would insert an apostrophe, and that it is only my notes that are in error.
 London Transport Users Committee believes that the simple insertion of an apostrophe would clarify its 
 role. It would also make it clear to those who wanted to approach the organisation that it was interested in the generality of transport issues, and not just London transport. Making it clear that it is London's transport users committee would also put the focus principally on transport, and it would be hard to argue that cars are a form of transport according to the way in which the organisation represents transport users. I would like to hear the Minister's views on the amendment. Will he consider meeting the organisation to discuss its remit to see whether it could be more focused on public transport and the needs of pedestrians, cyclist, bus passengers and so on in London, and to discuss whether it could make the extent of its remit clear to those seeking its support?

Anne McIntosh: This is an opportunity for the Minister to tell us the role he envisages for the London Transport Users Committee. I shall raise some serious issues later during the clause stand part debate, but I would like the Minister to confirm that the Government expect LTUC to be consulted.

John Spellar: two issues are contained in amendment No. 93: one is whether the London Transport Users Committee should be consulted on clause 105; the other is the role and remit of that committee.
 Nothing in clause 105 changes the role or remit of the committee. Should the organisation want to approach us later to change its role and remit, it would be sensible for the Government to examine that. However, we are aware—particularly at present—that there is a significant cross-over between the role of road transport with regard to both buses and cars in London. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) wishes to differentiate to such an extent between various users of road space: they have common interests and we should not try to set up a conflict of interests between them. 
 The clause is designed to deal with a situation that was not envisaged when the Greater London Authority Act 1999 was passed. At that time, it was anticipated that there would be a seamless transition with regard to the London underground. Unfortunately, that has been slightly frustrated by a series of legal actions by the Mayor and Transport for London, which have had no positive outcomes. They have led to considerable delay and cost to Londoners. I hope that we can now move towards a sensible transition from London Transport to Transport for London for the London Underground and that these schemes can be implemented and can start to deliver benefits for London. 
 The clause is designed to facilitate that change—and I must say that one consults about policy and not about detailed changes of the implementation of policy.

Don Foster: The Minister talked about a seamless transfer of the London underground to Transport for London and the importance of consultation. I wish him to say whether the Government had discussions with Transport for London, particularly about arrangements in relation to British Transport police.

John Spellar: We had a number of discussions with Transport for London: it was able to contain its enthusiasm for some of our measures. We have also been engaged in regular discussions with Transport for London about British Transport police. The Home Office has been conducting discussions and consultations regarding both relations with and operations of British Transport police and the Metropolitan police within London's transport network, and I have no doubt that there will be further discussions on that.

Don Foster: I am sure that the Minister will not have this information at his fingertips, but I would be grateful if he would write to me to inform me of the dates when meetings took place between his Department and Transport for London in respect of the aspects of the Bill that relate to the British Transport police.

John Spellar: I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that.

Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response, and in particular for his commitment to meet the London Transport Users Committee if it would like to discuss its remit. I am sure that it would welcome the opportunity to do that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Spellar: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in
clause 105, page 46, line 37, leave out 'or class of right,' and insert 
 ', class of right, provision or class of provision,'.
 Clause 105 will ensure that the operation of London Underground's contracts is not affected when they are transferred from one body to another. An unforeseen consequence of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is that certain provisions given in respect of London Underground's contracts might fall away when contracts are transferred either to Transport for London or subsequently, and it was not the intention that they should do so. An example of that would be guarantees given by London Regional Transport in respect of London Underground's obligations under public-private partnership contracts. 
 The clause remedies that unforeseen problem by allowing London Transport and Transport for London to exempt contracts that they wish to transfer from those parts of the 1999 Act that cause the problems. It benefits all parties if guarantees and protections already agreed in the contracts can be relied on. 
 However, as currently drafted, the clause would only allow the relevant 1999 Act provisions to be disapplied in respect of a contract as a whole, or in relation to a specified contractual right. Some of the contracts contain complex arrangements for which it will be necessary to disapply only some of the relevant provisions, and there was doubt about whether the existing drafting could be construed as allowing that. The amendment simply refines the clause to ensure that that can take place.

Anne McIntosh: I do not have the benefit of the Minister's background. The amendment would address a situation that was pointed out to the
 Government by my hon. Friends and I in the former Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Minister will be aware that one of the PPP or PFI contracts that is being negotiated concerns Metronet. I wonder whether the Minister recalls the words used at that time of the Select Committee hearing—I should like to draw them to the Committee's attention anyway. They were quoted in the minority report, which was drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and I in the most extraordinary of circumstances. Committee members know that in most cases a Select Committee tries to reach cross-party agreement, but the words of the rail regulator were particularly powerful in drawing the Government's attention to their error, which is leading not only to a delay in transferring responsibility from the Mayor to London Underground, as the Minister suggested, but which could have other far-reaching consequences.
 As was pointed out by Opposition in the Select Committee—the rail regulator found himself in some sympathy with this—what happened to Railtrack with regard to being taken into administration or going bankrupt could happen to one of the companies party to Metronet. The rail regulator was concerned about that, and on page 51 of the minority report of proceedings on Wednesday 7 November 2001 the rail regulator said: 
''The Secretary of State said to me that if there were an application for an interim review he had the necessary authority to introduce immediate legislation to prevent the review taking place.''
 The rail regulator went on say: 
''I pointed out the very severe adverse effects it could and probably would have on the financial markets and investor confidence generally if the Government were to be seen to be taking away the independence of an economic regulator. I said that the effect on transport stocks would be severe, but it would go much wider than that. It would have very serious adverse implications for the constitutional position of independent regulators in other industries, including but not limited to gas, water, electricity and telecommunications, the independent position of the PPP arbiter in the London Underground. (How can an arbitrator in a dispute have to decide the case in favour of one party to the dispute at the direction of that party?) I said it would have severe adverse implications for the market perception of the stability of the regulated privatised industries, investor confidence in those companies and the effect on other companies in the transport and utilities sectors.''
 The rail regulator was supporting our point in the most powerful way possible. How far would the Minister's amendment, taken with clause 105, resolve a situation in which a PPP proceeded under the present company? I gather that one favoured bidder is Metronet, but there are several other smaller companies. Meanwhile, there is the backdrop of a war being declared in Iraq—perhaps imminently—the wide-ranging ramifications of that, the effect that that is having on the stock market, and the volatile state of the construction industry. Does the Minister believe that amendment No. 83 and clause 105 will deal with failure of the PPP and the reversion of a contract to the public sector? What would be the implications for the public purse? 
 My understanding is that, as of today, the cost to taxpayers of Network Rail is currently off balance sheet—it is scheduled on a year-on, year-off basis—and is deemed to be £21 billion, although it could increase. In the worst-case scenario, would the implications for the public purse also be deemed to be off balance sheet, or have the Government made provisions? 
 The Committee will recall that I have been a Railtrack shareholder since its inception. Many constituents have written to me on finding that they are in the small investor category. I have been reading the City pages—I am interested and concerned for my constituents—and precisely what the rail regulator said would happen regarding the demise of Railtrack, following its going into administration, is happening. That is coming home to haunt the Government. There is not the flood of investors from the financial institutions into the PPP contract that they expected and they are faced with a real-case scenario. I am deeply concerned and I wish the Minister to put my mind at rest by saying that clause 105 and amendment No. 83 will deal with the situation. I understand that subsections (1) to (3), as amended by amendment No. 83, would allow contract operators who intended to transfer from London Regional Transport to Transport for London to do so. I am concerned that it is not just a matter of Railtrack's situation; investors' confidence has also been hit by the Government's handling of British Energy.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am rather confused about whether the hon. Lady is talking about the public purse or the interests of shareholders. In my simple world, public borrowing is much cheaper, because the Government take the risks. Long-term interest rates have rarely been lower than they are now, so if there were any reversion to the public sector, there would be a saving to the public purse. That view is shared by some of my colleagues. However, the hon. Lady seems to be talking about the interests of shareholders and confusing that with the public interest—they are not the same thing.

Anne McIntosh: I am talking about both things, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify matters. In the first instance, shareholders take the risk and make the investment. There may be insufficient shareholders, especially from financial institutions of the magnitude required to make such investments, and the PPP may not happen. There is no power in the clause as it stands—without amendment No. 83—regarding reversion to the public purse. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of that. The Select Committee took evidence from Bob Kiley and from those in charge of Transport for London; they made that point and confirmed it.
 The Library research paper notes: 
''As the GLA Act did not contemplate the possibility of a significant delay between completion of a PPP agreement and transfer of the London Underground to TfL, there was no provision for ensuring the return of the assets of London Underground to the public sector in the event of a PPP company defaulting on a contract before London Underground transfers to TfL Nor was there provision for the insolvency provisions to come into effect if a 
PPP company became insolvent before the transfer of London Underground to TfL.''
 I am not sure that the present law, even as it will be amended by clause 105 and amendment No. 83, answers the point satisfactorily. We met such matters head on with Railtrack, and we may have to do so again in the event of a PPP going into default.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Lady referred to legislation as it stands. Does she agree however that some components of society and the economy are so vital that the Government must always take such a risk? If there were a default or a financial collapse, they would have to step in. Measures would be introduced at that time to accommodate such matters.

Anne McIntosh: To make a brutal point, the Government cannot afford to take such action at the moment. They are committed to meeting the Maastricht criteria.

Alan Hurst: Order. The debate is becoming too wide.

Anne McIntosh: The Government are trying to control public expenditure. If clause 105, along with amendment No. 83, came into effect, I am not convinced that the problem would be dealt with. I seek confirmation from the Minister about that. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) said that money would be set aside for such matters. If that were the case, where would that money come from and would it be on or off the balance sheet?

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Lady is confusing capital and revenue. We must know whether borrowing would be within the terms of the Maastricht agreement, which her party supported. I personally dissented from that, although I was not in the House at the time. We must bear in mind the level of public borrowing and the revenue costs of financing it. That will be lower in the public sector because the Government can borrow at much lower interest rates than can be done in the private sector.

Anne McIntosh: Let us deal with the current position. The Government have to prove that they can raise the money on the market against the backdrop of a total lack of consumer confidence. Because of Railtrack, the financial institutions lost a fortune. The impact on the pensions and insurance markets has been massive.

John Spellar: Will the hon. Lady specify the way in which companies lost a fortune?

Anne McIntosh: The Minister conveniently forgets that the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) put Railtrack into administration and people lost a substantial amount of money. I do not believe that the compensation was anything like the value of the shares. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Government are inviting the same financial institutions to invest in the company to form the part of the PPP that will fall directly under clause 105.

John Spellar: Can the hon. Lady tell us the share price when Railtrack was put into administration because of its grievous failures? Will she say how much the market in general has fallen since then and the level of payment that has been made to shareholders? Can
 she justify her statement about the fortune lost by the companies?

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that I can drop the Minister a line about that. He must be aware that there was a total loss of confidence in the financial institutions, given how the Government handled the administration of Railtrack. The rail regulator did not wish to put Railtrack into administration at that time. In fact, he recommended that there should be an interim review. I shall not go into that now because it is not appropriate.

John Spellar: Surely it is not the role of the regulator to recommend that there be an interim review; it would have been for Railtrack to approach the regulator and request an interim review.

Anne McIntosh: That is precisely the scenario that the rail regulator put to the Minister. The regulator's independence was taken away, and the Minister said that if such a scenario happened, he had the legislation ready to go. The right hon. Member for Tyneside, North would not even tell the Select Committee when that legislation would be in place. We are where we are, and the Government have now gone to the market and are asking for money to be raised for a PPP.

John Spellar: The Government have not gone to the market; the consortia and infracos will approach the market. For someone who claims to have great knowledge, the hon. Lady is getting into an awful lot of difficulties with the details.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance. As the hon. Member for Luton, North pointed out, the Government may well have to pick up the pieces further down the line. We are humbly asking the Minister how the clause and amendment No. 83 allow for that. It is not just that the legal framework has to be put in place; Bob Kiley, who is not unconnected with what will happen, is deeply concerned that insolvency provisions will not come into effect if a PPP company becomes insolvent before the transfer of London Underground to TFL.
 Will the Minister say how we will prevent, both before and after the transfer of London Underground to TFL, the situation that the Government found themselves in at the demise of Railtrack? That is not such a difficult question. I hope that the Minister will answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Luton, North, too. I would like to know which budget the Government have in mind if something happens, and how far the clause and amendment No. 83 will meet the situation and prevent what happened with Railtrack from recurring.

John Spellar: The Tories certainly cannot let go of Railtrack, but I suppose that we should not be too unhappy about that, because we will make sure that they do not forget all its lamentable failings and the mechanism that they set up that so badly failed the rail industry and the country.
 We are making heavy weather of the clause. The insolvency of the consortia is extremely unlikely, but the Greater London Authority Act 1999 provides 
 protection. Unfortunately, that protection does not come into effect until the transfer of London Underground to Transport for London. The purpose of the clause is to provide interim cover that brings those provisions into force before the transfer. We hope that London Underground can be transferred in good time. 
 The hon. Lady mentioned the views of Bob Kiley. I get on pretty well with him, but the views that he, Ken Livingstone and Transport for London have advanced a number of times have been comprehensively overturned in the courts on several occasions at considerable cost to London taxpayers and to no great benefit to London Underground, PPPs or the travelling public. 
 The hon. Lady was in some confusion about the operations of the financial market side, and was in great confusion about the difference between shareholders and bondholders in the schemes. A number of companies are involved in the consortia. As the hon. Lady will be aware, there was a question with one of the consortia about the viability of one of the partners, and the other partners said that they would assume those responsibilities. 
 The hon. Lady's comments on sentiment in the City seem to reflect the views of the Tory party and its supporters in the City rather than those of the bankers who are getting on with their jobs. She talked as though negotiations with regard to the Tube Lines consortium were still going on but they were completed on 31 December 2002: it has already gone to the markets and raised finance, and it has done so without difficulty. 
 It may be in the Conservative party's interests to try to whip up a scare about this matter, but in the hard-headed business world what people are interested in is whether the projects work and offer a return. This clause, along with the Government amendment, provides a copper-bottomed security against an extremely unlikely eventuality. It enables the companies to go to the market satisfactorily, so that they can obtain finance and put much-needed investment into refurbishing the London underground. 
 We have made a considerable excursion around various areas of the Tory psyche and the problems that the Conservatives created for public transport. However, the measures are sensible.

Anne McIntosh: It is gratifying to think that my party still has so many supporters in the City; that was not the impression that I had.
 The Minister did not satisfactorily respond to the concerns that were expressed about the outstanding contract for Metronet. I appreciate why he is sensitive about that; many of his right hon. and hon. Friends think that the PPP was botched. It is obvious that that is why he has tabled the amendment. We can argue about such matters in the clause stand part debate. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Tom Brake: This clause might represent the final chapter of the sad and costly saga of PPP, but it is probably the final chapter of the first book, as I am sure that many volumes will be written about PPP over the coming 30 years.
 The Secretary of State announced in an offhand way during a Select Committee sitting that PPP had cost £500 million so far. That money has not bought a single escalator, let alone a new train. We are six years into the PPP process and millions of words have been written into contracts that are several feet high, but we still do not know how PPP will work in practice. The Minister rightly said that the Tube Lines deal was signed at the end of last year but we do not know how that will work and whether we will get value for money from it. We know that there are complicated formulae with algorithms to work out whether litter will be within acceptable limits, but we do not know whether there will be new tube trains, if there are to be new trains, when they will be introduced, or when passengers will see significant improvements and feel that PPP has delivered value for money. 
 While justifying the inclusion of this clause in what is, after all, a Bill that deals with rail and transport safety, the Minister said that it could never have been envisaged that we would reach this point in relation to PPP. However, he must have realised that any negotiations involving his friend the Mayor would be fraught with difficulties. 
 It was clear early on that contingency plans were not in place for PPP with regard to a failing contractor. The Minister said that insolvency was very unlikely—

John Spellar: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Liberal Democrats have supported the Mayor in his campaign against the PPP and the Labour Government?

Tom Brake: I hardly think that the Minister needs me to answer that question. Clearly, he knows that we have supported the PPP. Perhaps the Minister would have been happier if I had said, ''our friend the Mayor''.
 The Minister is seeking to divert attention from the fact that he could have foreseen this problem. He said that insolvency was very unlikely. However, would he admit to losing sleep in recent weeks over the apparent viability of a key player in one of the consortiums? The particular firm has featured regularly in the business pages of most newspapers, and there is a question mark over how long that firm will survive. If the Minister were truthful, he would accept that it has been touch and go.

John Spellar: On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to cast the aspersion that the Minister might not be truthful?

Alan Hurst: Members of the Committee will follow proper parliamentary procedures, which predominantly involve courtesy to other hon. Members and not stretching words.

Tom Brake: I am happy to withdraw the comment; it was inappropriate. I suspect that the Minister is a little touchy on the subject of PPP and one can
 understand why. The enormous gap that is left in the Government's contingency plans must be plugged, so, clearly, we will support the clause. However, there should never have been a gap. It was such a glaring hole in the Government's legislation that it is astonishing that we have managed to get so far down the line. Despite the discussions and bitter arguments, only now, six years into the process, are we plugging a loophole that many hon. Members saw in the early stages.

John Randall: It is a great pleasure to speak about the clause. As I have often told the Committee, I am a simple person. I am fascinated to see in the explanatory notes that
''This Part extends to England, Wales and Scotland.''
 Are there plans to expand the Metropolitan line along the line of the A40 to Wales, or the Northern line to Scotland? Perhaps the Minister will tell me that Wales and Scotland are included in case one of the companies is based there. In that case, if one of them is based in Northern Ireland, it will be outside the remit of the clause. That is the first point on which I would like clarification. 
 I remember well the consideration of the Greater London Authority Bill. It was the first Standing Committee on which I served—the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) was also on the Committee. It was fascinating and went on for weeks. I seem to remember that, despite having many hours on that delightful Committee—before fancy guillotining and falling knives came into play—we did not have sufficient time to discuss everything and the Government introduced many of the provisions relating to the London underground at a later stage. Those of us who served on that Committee can be excused for not examining those matters in detail because they were not included in our consideration. 
 Although I will not go too far down the line of happy reminiscences, I remember that Mr. Ken Livingstone often sat outside the Room on the Committee Corridor and did not always take part in the Committee. I can remember him sitting outside into the small hours of the morning, offering Committee members a choice of whisky or brandy. Perhaps the fact that he was not taking a full part in some our proceedings showed that his thoughts were elsewhere. 
 I speak on behalf of a constituency that has the underground at its heart. We have three stations, which are on the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines. I hope one day finally to persuade the authority, whoever it may be, to extend the Central line from Ruislip Gardens to Uxbridge. There is already a siding at Ruislip Gardens, and it need only be extended a couple of metres. That would be a marvellous opportunity for lots of people, not least those in the commercial centre of Uxbridge, in which I have a personal interest.

John Spellar: A financial interest.

John Randall: Yes, a financial interest, although as anyone in retailing knows, it is often a very marginal interest.
 Londoners are, by and large, fed up with all the arguments about the London underground. The Government went down the wrong line and—to use a furniture term—made a cock-up of the matter. [Interruption.] I see that there is disbelief that the expression relates to furniture. I shall explain it to hon. Members after Committee, if they are interested in the derivation of the expression. 
 The time has come for us to get on with sorting out the London underground. I have already said how not to deal with the issue. Londoners would not thank anyone for holding up the processes any further. Although I have strong reservations about the matter—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York will go into much greater detail—it is time to sort it out, for the sake of my constituents, other Londoners, including those who use the Central line, and those going to Essex and places such as Theydon Bois, which I always thought was the name of a candidate for the Referendum party. We have a duty to sort that out.

Anne McIntosh: Obviously, it is in all our interests that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) enjoys the best parts of the underground. I hope that the Minister heard his special plea. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out—this will be of special interest to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and other hon. Members—there might soon be a tram north of the border. That, as can be seen on the Order Paper, is the subject of an early-day motion. Also, under clause 105, we might shortly be able to enjoy the benefits of the London underground on our holidays in Scotland.

David Cairns: I am not sure whether it was the intention of the draftsmen, but has not the Minister been far too generous to the Mayor of London? Not only has the Mayor squandered London taxpayers' money, but by holding up much-needed investment in the tube that is central to the economic operation of London and therefore the whole of the UK, he has squandered taxpayers' money in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that the Minister of State heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks and will comment on them. I look forward to the introduction of trams and the London underground to Scotland, and to chain ferries in Plymouth; I will have a very busy summer. I understood it to be a personal invitation, but I am sure that the Minister would wish the whole Committee to enjoy the benefits of chain ferries in his constituency.
 Interestingly, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde said that the Government had been squandering money—

David Cairns: The Mayor.

Anne McIntosh: Oh, the Mayor. A previous Labour Member has been squandering money, and we are all friends together.
 The explanatory notes were no doubt written by the same person who wishes to extend clause 105 to cover Scotland and Wales. Paragraph 159 of the explanatory notes states: 
''The railways in London measures will not require any additional public expenditure over and above that envisaged in LRT's/LUL's contracts, or entail any additional public sector manpower burden.''
 I admit to being confused because if the Government have to put the contract back into the public sector, that will create cost to the taxpayer. Are the explanatory notes misleading?

Kelvin Hopkins: By parallel, Network Rail is taking back in-house contracting in the Paddington to Reading area. It will save money, not lose it. We cannot assume that, when a service goes back into the public sector, it will create cost. It may be beneficial to the public purse.

Anne McIntosh: I do not know how far down that path you will allow me to go, Mr. Hurst. However, at present, money is being raised through bonds on the market. If it were no longer raised on the open market, it would have to be raised by the taxpayer. A charge would be made on the public purse. It is interesting that paragraph 160 of the explanatory notes states:
''The amendments to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 do not appear to involve any human rights implications, so the provisions of the Bill concerning the Greater London Authority Act 1999 are compatible with the Convention.''
 Presumably, a bondholder who is deprived of his holding for any reason could plead that he has lost enjoyment of his property and the right to hold the bond. It will be interesting to know whether that is the case. 
 Subsections (1) to (3), along with amendment No. 83, will amend the Greater London Authority Act to allow contracts to operate as intended on the transfer from London Regional Transport to Transport for London and any subsequent transfers between Transport for London subsidiaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said that, when he had the honour to sit on the Standing Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill, pre-knives were not in operation. Despite discussing that legislation for a considerable time, the Committee did not get it right, which is why such matters have to be rectified under the Bill.

John Randall: It may be of interest to note that at least two of the members of the Committee who were on the Government Front Bench have now returned to the Back Benches. There may have been more. Perhaps the present Ministers were not on the Front Bench when that Bill was being considered.

Anne McIntosh: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was referring to the calibre of those members of the Committee. I am sure that he would not wish to do that.

John Randall: I would not dream of it.

Anne McIntosh: Subsection (5) relates to the insolvency of a PPP, how it would be wound up and the assets returned to the public sector. Will the
 Minister explain what would happen? From which budget does he propose that the Government fund the reimbursement of that investment if such a regrettable situation arose?
 Given the background of Railtrack passing into the hands of the administrators and re-emerging as Network Rail, the only beneficiary seems to be the accountants who charged millions of pounds in fees for the privilege. Clearly, such an aspect is exercising many minds and it is one about which we wish to receive further clarification. 
 The Minister said that the Tube Lines deal was completed on 31 December 2002. My understanding is that Metronet has not yet concluded, and is facing the difficulty of further collapse and erosion of confidence in the equities market. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the issuing of bonds is part of that process and is fraught with difficulties. Perhaps if the scheme had been launched three months previously, or were launched in three months' time, we would not face such difficulties.

John Spellar: Can the hon. Lady explain why a lowering of the value of equities automatically means that investors are less likely to invest in bonds? In many cases, quite the reverse happens: if equities become less attractive, more money is often available to invest in Government or other bonds.

Anne McIntosh: It is not incumbent on me to explain why the Government are having difficulties issuing bonds.

John Spellar: We are not.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed, they are. I am sure that we can return to the matter during the later parts of the Bill.

John Spellar: I have already explained that Tube Lines went to the market and was financed, and that Metronet has already made its announcement. I am surprised that the hon. Lady is making such heavy weather of this.

Anne McIntosh: It is the City pages of the newspapers that are making heavy weather of it.
 The provisions for interoperability standards will relate to England, Wales and Scotland. In relation to the question of the hon. Member for Bath, I wonder whether it will help to know who sets the technical standards that will presumably apply to the London underground under clause 105. I recall saying on another question that if I knew the answer, I would not be sitting on the Opposition side of the Committee; I have no immediate plans to move, but that could change in two years. However, homework over the weekend revealed who will set the TSIs—technical specifications for interoperability. I thought that it would be appropriate to share the information with the Committee, including the hon. Member for Bath and the Minister, who can read it at their leisure. The European Association for Railway Interoperability, which goes under the French acronym AEIF, was designated as the joint representative body in the directive's framework. I am sure that the Government are negotiating as we 
 speak the technical standards for the London underground.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for supplying that information to the Committee. However, I was not particularly interested to hear that answer, as I already knew it. The question that I asked, which the Minister and the hon. Lady have clearly been unable to answer, is what happens in the event of conflict between the industry standards set in this country and the TSIs set through the bodies that she has mentioned?

Anne McIntosh: I imagine that the technical standards will be resolved in the usual way. In the past, some British participants have been reluctant to engage in the use of standards. We have had the discussion about the three-pin plug. My hon. Friend who used to sit for Southend, East but whose constituency now has a slightly different name took a great interest in that.

John Spellar: The lesson of the three-pin plug is that we managed to maintain that standard, which is not, as far as I am aware, under threat.

Anne McIntosh: The point that the Minister has missed is that we are not selling many three-pin plugs elsewhere in Europe. With regard to technical standards for interoperability on the trains, it would be to our advantage to have not only the Orient Express but as many other trains as the Government might wish. They have not denied that they want London Underground to operate in England, Wales and Scotland—although I am hard-pressed to understand how the Minister expects that to happen—but the London Underground might also have a future in Brussels, Frankfurt and Lille.

John Spellar: It is surprising that the hon. Lady complained about knives on the guillotine and then filibustered.

Don Foster: The Minister is gathering his notes. In view of the hon. Lady's interest in whether London Underground will operate in Brussels and elsewhere, he might be interested to learn that I recently visited Sweden—as Committee members know—and that Connex, which is, by a roundabout route, part of one of the consortiums that is bidding for the London Underground, is currently operating the underground in Stockholm.

John Spellar: On the other hand, it is remarkably difficult for other countries' companies to operate in France. Several European countries are taking a keen interest in that.

Don Foster: I must disabuse the Minister. I am sure that he will be delighted to know that when the Secretary of State for Defence recently made a statement about the new aircraft carriers he repeatedly pointed out that one of the companies, British Maritime Industries from Bath—

Alan Hurst: Order. It is clear that the Minister will not respond to that.

John Spellar: I was not aware that that was a transport company or that it operated in the railways sector.
 It is right that the provisions of the clause extend to Scotland because the Greater London Authority Act 1999 extended to England, Wales and Scotland. It is my understanding that that was the practice for all London legislation before devolution. However, the Mayor has assured me that he has no further territorial ambitions. 
 The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred to the Mayor dispensing whisky and brandy in the Corridor during the passage of the 1999 Act. We hope that he did not go on to a party afterwards because that might have subsequently appeared in the London Evening Standard. 
 We have had a series of expeditions around the clause, and I now wish to get back to what it is intended to do, which is to ensure that the insolvency regime that will be in place post-transfer, and which is envisaged in the PPP contracts, will also operate pre-transfer. The explanatory notes state that the clause will not require any additional public expenditure than that which is envisaged in London Regional Transport's and London Underground's contracts. 
 This is a straightforward business-like way to deal with an immediate problem. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Repeals

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I seek an assurance that the Government will not delete any further provisions from the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
 I did not see the words ''of police'' when I read section 76(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, but I assume that the Minister will confirm that that is the only change to that Act. 
 We have already debated whether, if oral swabs were to be added to the specimens taken for the tests under the alcohol provisions for both rail and sea, there would need to be a further amendment. From my understanding of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, that could be done by statutory instrument. I am confused about why we have had to wait since 1988 for primary legislation; the Minister, however, might argue that it was 2002. Is the Minister saying that if road traffic provisions have to be amended to include the taking of specimens by other means than are currently used, that would be done by statutory instrument? Would we have to wait for primary legislation? I wish for oral swabs to be considered acceptable in certain circumstances.

David Jamieson: The schedule does no more or less than repeal those provisions of the existing legislation that are no longer required in light of the Bill. The
 regulations under parts 4 and 5 would allow the maritime and aviation testing regimes to match any changes made to the road drink-driving test regime. The hon. Lady has raised the matter of different testing arrangements many times and we have handled it throughout the Bill. The legislation would be brought in through statutory instrument, if it were appropriate.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 107 - Money

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for this opportunity to seek clarification from the Minister. Paragraph 159 of the explanatory notes tells us:
''The railways in London measures will not require any additional public expenditure''.
 However, part 7 is presumably general and refers to the whole of the Bill. When does the Minister expect the money resolution to come forward? I notice that there is a money resolution on the Marine Safety Bill on the Order Paper for Thursday this week. What will the timing be? Is the Minister able to give us an estimate of what the total cost will be for all parts of the Bill? Surely, at this stage he must be in a position to share that information with the Committee.

David Jamieson: The clause confirms that any new expenditure incurred by the Government as a result of the Bill would be paid for out of money provided to the Department by Parliament. As we have seen on many occasions during our deliberations, the explanatory notes outline the relatively small costs that the Government expect will result from the Bill. The hon. Lady has consistently asked about extra expenditure. As we have said, it is difficult to assess the precise figures at this stage, but it is anticipated that the extra expenditure will be small.
 During our deliberations last Thursday we said that it would be unlikely that large numbers of pilots would be suspected of being under the influence on aeroplanes. It is, therefore, unlikely that a large number of tests would take place; I anticipate that there would be very few. That also applies to many other parts of the Bill. To assess the costs at this stage is difficult, but we know that they will be small.

Don Foster: I do not want to detain the Minister, but will he explain the Government's current thinking in relation to issues that we debated earlier in our proceedings? For example, we know that the Health and Safety Executive does not completely meet its costs from the current charging regime—there is a deficit. Do the Government anticipate that, under the new levy, all the costs will be covered and that there will no longer be a deficit to be made up by the Department? Is it anticipated that the total income from the police services agreement will meet the police budget in full? There are currently gaps in some areas and I wondered what was anticipated in relation to the overall costs of the Bill.

David Jamieson: The anticipation is that the costs in both cases will nearly be matched by any levies, but we do not necessarily expect full cost recovery in the case of the HSE.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 108 - Commencement

Amendment made: No. 42, in 
clause 108, page 47, leave out from line 41 to end of line 2 on page 48.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Amendment proposed: No. 92, in 
clause 108, page 48, line 10, at end insert— 
 '( ) Section 105 (and the relevant entry in Schedule 7) shall come into force on the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Spellar.]

Anne McIntosh: Clearly, for reasons that the Minister will probably soon share with the Committee, the Government wish to expedite the enforcement of clause 105. We had hoped that the Government would be able to tell the Committee when the other clauses would come into effect, especially whether the Government were minded to expedite provisions relating to aviation offences. If the provisions relating to blood alcohol levels are acceptable at the conclusion of the Bill's proceedings and are enacted, when will the Government introduce a Bill relating to offences committed by disruptive aviation passengers who are the worse for wear, rather than pilots, crew and other personnel? When will those provisions reach the statute book to join this Bill?

John Randall: I should like to take this opportunity to clarify the amendment, which has a pair of brackets at the beginning with nothing inside them. Is that a normal procedure, or should there be an ''8'' inside?

John Spellar: Some of the points that were made by the hon. Member for Vale of York were more relevant to the clause stand part debate than to the amendment. However, a Bill dealing with air passenger offences is already being considered by the House and I believe that it has Government support—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is nodding.
 To answer the question about the empty brackets, I understand that that is normal drafting procedure, which I hope reassures the hon. Member for Uxbridge. 
 The amendment follows on from clause 105. I have explained on several occasions why we believe that it is necessary to enforce those provisions as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for informing us about the Aviation (Offences) Bill. I recall participating in the early stages of the proceedings with the Under-Secretary. That was an enjoyable experience. I learned much from those preparations.
 There is much agreement in Committee about the provisions of the Bill that cover alcohol testing for 
 pilots, and we support them. The Under-Secretary said that the Government do not imagine that many pilots will fall into the categories referred to in the provisions. However, he said that some devices would need to be adapted for the tests, so presumably there will be a short period of preparation for that. The Bill sets out to give precedence to alcohol testing, and creates new aviation and maritime offences for air and sea pilots and other personnel in safety-critical positions. 
 It is regrettable that the Government did not see fit to include provisions relating to aviation offences, air rage, and disruptive passengers intoxicated with drink or drugs in the Bill. We are in danger of creating two categories of offences. Perhaps the Minister was told that his Department could not have as big a Bill as it wished, but that is not the best reason for excluding offences that relate to passengers. Such offences could also apply in a maritime sense; there might be disruptive passengers on a disco riverboat or chain ferry. However, one feels most vulnerable as an air passenger. We are disappointed that the Government did not make one package and include disruptive passengers on planes and ships in the Bill. It would have been a much neater way of proceeding. Now, there will be a category of offence relating to those working in safety-critical functions, even though passengers could feel equally jeopardised by disruptive passengers.

Alan Hurst: Order. There is always a temptation to talk about what is not in a Bill, but I think that we should restrain ourselves to talking about what is in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I was just trying to elicit from the Minister whether he was told that the Bill had to be a particular size, and why certain categories were not included.

John Spellar: Legislation could always be expanded infinitely; there will always be other measures that people will wish to add. That leads to prioritisation by Departments. I believe that the measures before us reflect those priorities. In addition, as I said, a number of measures are, helpfully, being taken forward in private Member's legislation.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110 - Short title

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in
clause 110, page 48, line 27, leave out 'and' and insert 'Road, Aviation and Maritime,'.
 I did not realise when I drafted the amendment that the title is always considered last. Most people would, when writing a press release, for example, do the same. 
 It is highly regrettable that the Bill deals only with the rail, air and sea matters that we have considered. I refer to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for 
 Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), shadow Secretary of State for Transport, on Second Reading: 
''our starting point should be the fact that a life is a life is a life. Saving a life on the roads or in the air is at least as valuable to society as saving one in any other context.''
 He continued: 
''One aspect that Conservative Members will want to explore in Committee and on Report is whether we should be thinking about moving towards a system whereby the Government seek to save life and to commit resources that are likely to save life on the same basis across all modes of transport without differentiating, as sometimes happens now, between expenditure that would save our lives on the railway as opposed to that which would save lives in other contexts.—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 778.]
 It is deeply regrettable that, given the number of deaths and offences, road safety is not covered by the Bill. The figures speak for themselves and show that, each year, about 1,000 people are killed or seriously injured on icy or snow-covered roads. Snow and ice deterrent is essential to prevent the toll from rising and we want that covered by the Bill. We want the Committee's approval of the amendment. Hon. Members may not be aware that there is currently no legal responsibility for local authorities in England and Wales to take reasonable steps to clear ice and snow from roads, whereas, under Scottish law, it is abundantly clear that local authorities must take such action. Public and highways authorities need the protection that extending such provisions to England and Wales would bring. 
 When preparing for the debate, I sought from the Library the most recent drink-driving figures to show why the Bill should cover road safety and why the lack of that is a serious omission. The figures—adjusted for under-reporting—show the number of fatal accidents involving illegal alcohol levels and consequent casualties between 1979 and 2001. There has been a steep decline since 1979 from 1,380 fatalities, but accidents still account for 420 fatalities each year. The number of serious injuries was 1,820. The number of slight injuries was 9,780, leading to a total of more than 12,000. The figures, based on the details held by coroners and procurators fiscal, show that the percentage of all riders and drivers who are killed and who are over the limit—

Alan Hurst: Order. The hon. Lady will need to convince me that her argument relates directly to the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: I am justifying our wish to amend the title of the Bill. Our proposal covers other provisions that we wish to insert into it. The Bill's present title relates specifically to proposals that we have discussed at some length in Committee, such as setting up a rail accident branch and the creation of new aviation and maritime offences. I was presenting arguments to persuade the Minister that, were we to amend the title, it would create the legal basis to enable us to consider other new clauses.

Don Foster: Perhaps the hon. Lady, like me, is optimistic that new clauses relating to the establishment of a road accident investigation branch
 will be successful. Therefore, it is appropriate at this stage to change the name of the Bill to encompass what we know will happen later.

Anne McIntosh: I am only partly with the hon. Gentleman. We would stop short of creating a separate body with a whole new bureaucracy. I referred earlier to STATS 19, the road accident survey, which is the least bureaucratic method and very effective. Forms are filled in by the police at the scene of a road traffic accident. The police send the completed forms to the Transport Research Laboratory where the information is collated and conclusions are drawn that are then shared with the Government. It is less clear whether the conclusions are shared with all hon. Members. I wished to explain why it is necessary to consider road safety and the tightening-up of road safety provisions. We will return to the matter when we consider the new clauses.
 The Minister said only this morning that the Government do not envisage that there will be a great deal of testing of aviation pilots, and I am sure that he would say the same of sea pilots of commercial vessels or recreational craft. I do not expect that massive numbers would be involved. There has been only one notable but devastating disaster to date in this respect—that of the Marchioness. However, the evidence speaks for itself: the scale of the casualties was enormous. 
 I believe that the hon. Member for Bath supports me—he is also curious why the Minister did not see fit to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover road safety and tighten up provisions for road safety offences. I part company with the hon. Gentleman, however, because we do not see the value of creating a separate bureaucracy. We all agree with Lord Cullen's recommendations about why we need a rail accident investigation branch. There are compelling reasons for including road safety in the Bill to give a legal basis to the new clauses that we wish to discuss. 
 We have talked about omissions from the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It may not seem quite as obvious to an hon. Member who represents a Plymouth constituency as it is to me that there should be a legal responsibility to clear the roads of ice and snow. However, we all saw the devastation that was caused recently and the acceptance by the Highways Authority—

David Jamieson: What does that have to do with the Bill?

Anne McIntosh: We wish roads to be included in the provisions of this Bill. We were told that the Bill had to be a particular size, so will the Minister say that there was no room and that the Government will return to the issue at a later, albeit not-too-distant date?

Don Foster: I am sure that the Committee will be delighted to know that it is my birthday on 31 March.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is it the bus pass?

Don Foster: I should be protected from such scandalous assertions, Mr. Hurst.
 Importantly, 31 March will also be the third anniversary of the Government's road safety strategy 
 announcement. Although I join others in congratulating the present and previous Governments on several measures that they have taken on road safety, which have led to a continuing reduction in the number deaths and serious injuries on our roads, it is clear to me, and I suspect to everyone in Committee, that more needs to be done. Many people expected, during the three years since the launch of the Government's strategy, to see road safety legislation introduced. The Bill provides the opportunity for that to be done; if it does not happen, I hope that we will hear from the Minister, perhaps in response to subsequent amendments, further details of the Government's thinking on future activities to improve the situation on our roads. 
 This country deserves some congratulation for having the best overall road safety figures in Europe, although there are worrying aspects, particularly in respect of young people. I am prepared to pay tribute where it is due, but more action is needed. 
 We need remember only two statistics when we talk about why it is important to draw attention to the need for additional road safety measures: since the Government came to power, approximately 151 people have died on our railways; in the same period, 17,000 have died on our roads. The difference between those figures is enormous. We have spent a great deal of time debating measures to improve safety on our railways—rightly so—but given that huge discrepancy, it strikes me that the hon. Member for Vale of York is absolutely right, as was the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on Second Reading, to raise road safety. The Liberal Democrats therefore join them in saying that we need an opportunity to discuss that subject.

David Jamieson: Until your timely intervention, Mr. Hurst, there was a danger that the debate would begin to cover matters that appear in later parts of the Bill. The reason why railways are referred to in the Bill's title is because the Bill includes rail measures that do not affect safety. For example, clause 14 establishes the Office of Rail Regulation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Vale of York accepts that to agree to her amendment to change the title, bearing in mind that the Bill includes no provisions for roads, would not be proper. She must accept that even if we were to accept some later amendments, the term ''transport safety'' adequately covers roads, maritime and aviation.

Don Foster: I am not trying to be difficult, but the Under-Secretary has just told the Committee that there are no matters related to road safety in the Bill. He may be optimistic that amendments from our Benches will be unsuccessful—I hope that he is not—but I draw his attention to his new clause 25, which relates to the wearing of seat belts in vehicles on roads.

David Jamieson: The term ''transport safety'' is the catch-all. We are talking about the short title, not a title that is rather less short than it was before. The Government are committed to road safety. The fact that it does not greatly feature in the Bill—notwithstanding votes that we may have on later deliberations—does not undermine that commitment.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned icy roads. Serious consideration is being given to such issues, but we did not think that it was appropriate to raise them in the context of the Bill. It is my belief that the current short title is more than adequate to cover issues that we have already deliberated on and issues that we will deliberate on, whether or not the Committee accepts them.

Anne McIntosh: I heard what the Under-Secretary said. I am grateful for, indeed I am almost embarrassed by, the support from the hon. Member for Bath. The Under-Secretary has had opportunities to consider such issues in the past, most recently during consideration of the Road Transport Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), which received its Second Reading on 9 February 2001. These provisions were considered some two years ago.
 The Under-Secretary went on to say that there are no road safety provisions in this Bill and that the Government felt that it was more appropriate to introduce them in a separate Bill on a separate occasion. He refrained from giving us a date for when that would be. I point out that the Road Traffic Acts underlie so many provisions of this Bill. Many considerations relating to the Road Transport Bill and subsequent case law underlie many major parts of this Bill, especially relating to the testing of aviation and shipping personnel for alcohol and drugs. 
 I referred to the figures. The statistic given by the hon. Member for Bath reinforced the statistics that I gave. I mentioned one provision of the private Member's Bill that had its Second Reading on 9 February 2001. Regrettably, there is still no legal obligation on highway authorities in England and Wales to clear the highways of snow and ice. Further clauses of that Bill could equally be dealt with in the context of this Bill. One example is a review of speed limits and the areas where speed limits apply, as drivers currently tend to ignore inappropriate speed limits. We have tabled a new clause to deal with that. In order to be consequential on the new clauses that we hope the Committee will be minded to accept, we need the legal basis in the title. My understanding is that if the title does not embrace those issues they cannot subsequently be raised. This is the appropriate time to amend that legal base. 
 There is a more controversial issue on which the Government have recently consulted. In the normal sequence of events, after a Government consultation, a draft Bill is brought forward. As we have seen, the Government are minded to create new offences, as with the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, where a new road traffic offence of driving while operating a hand-held mobile telephone was created. That is deeply controversial in itself. 
 That Bill also sought to amend the law concerning the wearing of seat belts. That feature could presumably be considered within the context of this Bill, if we were to agree our little amendment to the title. It is only a teensy-weensy innocent amendment. I 
 am sure that the Under-Secretary would, in the spirit of friendship and companionship and before our little holiday outing in the summer, be minded to accept it. 
 The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire sought to amend the Transport Act 2000 in relation to mandatory travel concessions for the elderly and disabled.

Andrew Murrison: On the subject of North Wiltshire, does my hon. Friend not agree that speed is always somebody else's problem and that it does not help when a Cabinet Minister is clocked doing 99 miles an hour in Wiltshire?

Anne McIntosh: Indeed. I hesitate to say,
''there but for the grace of God''.
 I do not think that my vehicle is capable of reaching such a speed. I sympathise with the point that my hon. Friend made, but I also sympathise with the Solicitor-General. 
 On the point about mandatory travel concessions for the elderly and disabled, within this Bill we have amended certain parts of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I hope that we can seek to amend other provisions.

David Jamieson: The hon. Lady is making a raft of points about different issues that could be raised on road safety. Notwithstanding that, had she tabled amendments on ice on roads or some of the other issues that she mentioned, does she agree that they would still have been within the scope of the Bill? The Bill's title mentions ''Transport Safety''. The long title sets out the scope of the Bill. Had she chosen to table any of those amendments, they would have been within the scope of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: There is yet time. When the Bill leaves the Committee, we will obviously have the remaining stages. We would seek to consider other aspects. Perhaps I am being a little pedantic and legalistic, but my understanding is that, in order to be orderly, the legal basis of the Bill must be amended through the title. I would have thought, and I think that the hon. Member for Bath agrees with me, that that particular aspect needed to be amended. The case is well made.
 Several Bill Committees have considered that in order for certain aspects to be admitted to the Bill, the short title must be amended. I would have sought to amend the short title, but I do not think that it would have been in order. I would have had the debate at the beginning of our deliberations. We deem the issue to be of great importance. If the Under-Secretary is not minded to support us, it is something to which we wish to return, painful as it is not to enjoy his support on this occasion. At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the 
 Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 69, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 110 order to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 3 - Schedules 1 and 4: sequestration, &c. in Scotland 'Where a person becomes, under paragraph 2(cc) of Schedule 1, liable to dismissal or, under paragraph 7(3A) of Schedule 4, ineligible for appointment—

(a) by reason that his estate has been sequestrated, he shall cease to be so liable or ineligible— 
 (i) in the case of the sequestration of his estate being recalled or reduced, on the date of that event; and 
 (ii) in any other case, on his obtaining a discharge; 
 (b) by reason of his having made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors, he shall cease to be so liable or ineligible— 
 (i) in the case of his paying his debts in full, on the date on which the payment is completed; and 
 (ii) in any other case, at the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the terms of the deed of composition or arrangement or trust deed are fulfilled.'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 19 - Maritime security services

The following shall be inserted after section 36 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c.31) (security directions: inspection)— 
 ''36A Maritime security services: approved providers 
 (1) In this section ''maritime security service'' means a process or activity carried out for the purpose of— 
 (a) complying with a requirement of a direction under any of sections 21 to 24, or 
 (b) facilitating a person's compliance with a requirement of a direction under any of those sections. 
 (2) Regulations may provide for the Secretary of State to maintain a list of persons who are approved by him for the provision of a particular maritime security service. 
 (3) The regulations may— 
 (a) prohibit the provision of a maritime security service by a person who is not listed in respect of that service; 
 (b) prohibit the use or engagement for the provision of a maritime security service of a person who is not listed in respect of that service; 
 (c) create a criminal offence; 
 (d) make provision about application for inclusion in the list (including provision about fees); 
 (e) make provision about the duration and renewal of entries on the list (including provision about fees); 
 (f) make provision about training or qualifications which persons who apply to be listed or who are listed are required to undergo or possess; 
 (g) make provision about removal from the list which shall include provision for appeal; 
 (h) make provision about the inspection of activities carried out by listed persons; 
 (i) confer functions on the Secretary of State or on a specified person; 
 (j) confer jurisdiction on a court. 
 (4) Regulations under subsection (3)(c)— 
 (a) may not provide for a penalty on summary conviction greater than a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, 
 (b) may not provide for a penalty of imprisonment on conviction on indictment greater than imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (whether or not accompanied by a fine), and 
 (c) may create a criminal offence of purporting, with intent to deceive, to do something as a listed person or of doing something, with intent to deceive, which purports to be done by a listed person. 
 (5) A direction under any of sections 21 to 24 may— 
 (a) include a requirement to use a listed person for the provision of a maritime security service; 
 (b) provide for all or part of the direction not to apply or to apply with modified effect where a listed person provides a maritime security service. 
 (6) Regulations under this section— 
 (a) may make different provision for different cases, 
 (b) may include incidental, supplemental or transitional provision, 
 (c) shall be made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, 
 (d) shall not be made unless the Secretary of State has consulted organisations appearing to him to represent persons affected by the regulations, and 
 (e) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of resolution of either House of Parliament.'' '.—[Mr. Spellar.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Spellar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 20—Railway security services.

John Spellar: The new clauses amend the Aviation Maritime Security Act 1990 and the Railways Act 1993 and would give the Secretary of State powers to maintain a list of approved providers of specific counter-terrorism security services to the maritime and domestic railway industries. Companies could only provide such services if they were on the appropriate list, and the Secretary of State would be able to remove companies from the list. Similar powers already exist under the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to cover the channel tunnel, and were introduced through the amendment of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to cover the aviation industry. The amendments would create parity across all those regulated areas of transport activity.
 The new clauses provide for enabling powers only. Relevant regulations will be needed in order to bring the requirements into effect. If considered necessary in the future, however, such regulations would provide a valuable extra layer of control in respect of security services provided to the industry. As on the aviation side, regulations will be brought in using the negative resolution procedure. Accordingly, I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

Don Foster: Briefly, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the need for the new clauses. Perhaps I could, for once, take on the mantle of the hon. Member for Uxbridge: the role of the simple man—

John Spellar: Does the hon. Gentleman have an identity crisis?

Don Foster: Indeed. Will the Minister explain why he constantly referred to a list of companies when the new clause uses the word ''person''? It refers to a single person, on some occasions. Will he explain why that is included and whether it means that the Secretary of State will keep a list of each and every individual working for every company?
 Subsequent regulations will, no doubt, provide us with the full details, but will the Minister provide us now with some indication of the arrangement regarding fees that would have to be paid under the two new clauses? Will he give an indication of the nature of the appeals mechanism and, perhaps more importantly, will he place on the record an indication of the kind of security activities that are included? 
 New clause 19 refers to ''Marine security services'' and new clause 20 refers to ''Railway security services''. If a parallel is being drawn, as the Minister did in his introductory remarks, between those services and aviation security services, some interesting questions must be addressed. For example, in relation to aviation security services, security passes are awarded to enable the people carrying out relevant activities to enter secure areas of airports. The Minister will be aware that I have many continuing concerns about the mechanism whereby such security passes are awarded. I would be interested to know whether similar problems might arise in relation to the new clauses. 
 Subsection (3)(j) would 
''confer jurisdiction on a court.''
 Perhaps the Minister would put on the record what court is being referred to. To bring maritime and railway security into line with aviation, as other parts of the Bill do, makes sense and we will have no difficulty supporting the Government.

Anne McIntosh: I have a number of questions about this matter. Indeed, I have tabled many questions in the past, especially on airline security. The Minister has said that the Government are using that model. There seems to be two levels of security. Security is strict and difficult for passengers who are accessing airline and central security checks. I put it on the record that the official Opposition welcome the additional security measures that have already been put in place at sea ports since 11 September—those will be prime targets. They provide not just a commercial, but a strategic contribution to an island such as the UK.
 My questions regarding airline security related to particular provisions and I realise that there may be good reasons why the Government have not been able to share information about them. However, what checks are made on those with security passes who access airside and who do not necessarily always go through the central security checks? There has also been much concern when, on many occasions, investigative journalists posing as airline workers have accessed airlines and caused security alerts—that shows how difficult it is. 
 In the context of all airline, maritime and railway security, we are talking about regulations that might create a criminal offence. Given the current climate, 
 what criminal record checks are made and will be made on applicants to the security services? We know that anyone wishing to join our offices in the House of Commons has to disclose any criminal record, but would it be an offence if an applicant to an airline, maritime or railway security service failed to disclose a criminal record, and what subsequent checks would be carried out? Does the service simply take the applicant's word for it that they have no criminal record? 
 The Minister said that new clauses 19 and 20 allow the Secretary of State to enable companies to provide the security services only if they are on an officially recognised list. What criteria would enable a company and its personnel to apply to go on that list? I have been approached by a constituent who applied to go on an official list of security officers that would bid for Government tenders. I am sure that I am not the only one to have been approached in this way. I regret that the Department concerned—not the Department of Transport—gave my constituent the run-around. 
 Clearly, such contracts are lucrative, and the staff perform a vital role against the backdrop of the heightened security and terror alert that this country faces at present. If I were approached by a constituent company that wished to bid for an airline, maritime or railways security service, I would like to be able to tell it what criteria it has to meet. As I have said, there are 23 statutory instruments this week alone. Against that fact, it does not impress me that the clause empowers the Government to pass further orders—and by negative resolution, too. Those are two good reasons for opposing the provisions. 
 The new clauses are wide ranging and create new offences. If similar provisions apply to Eurotunnel, how many offences have been committed under them? That would give us an idea of the impact that the provisions will have. The provisions, in so far as they are self-explanatory, raise a number of questions about the criteria used to get on the list. We would like to satisfy our real concerns about how the provisions apply in the airline sector, and about the cases in which they have led to concern. In particular, it would be a concern if people could move about airside without having had all the security and criminal record checks that we would like them to have had.

John Spellar: The hon. Member for Bath asked about the use of the term ''persons''. I understand that in legal terms, which have a tangential relationship to the English language, a company is a person. That is fairly standard legal usage.

Don Foster: I suspected that that would be the Minister's answer. Now that that is on record, can the Minister confirm that, in relation to maritime or railway security service provision, although a company may be on the list and may have met the criteria, it would still be possible for an individual working for that company who has not necessarily had the type of security checks referred to by the hon. Member for
 Vale of York to be engaged in those activities—as, sadly, currently occurs in the aviation industry?

John Spellar: That is likely to be a question of resources, particularly in any initial stages—as we are seeing with regard to London mini cab drivers, for example. We must temper practicality with the desirability of ensuring that the vetting regime is as thorough as possible.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York raised the criteria for companies to be listed. Once they are listed, checks on directors will be undertaken and counter-terrorist checks will need to be conducted on their staff. Subsequently, performance will be monitored. 
 A question was raised about fees. They are not proposed for aviation but it is important to state that these are enabling measures, and that there would be appropriate consultation on the bringing in of measures enabled by the Bill. 
 There has not been a decision on the mechanism and procedures for an appeals process. Passenger searches, site searching and security training are the sort of roles that would probably be included under this definition of security services. 
 On the appeals procedure, a provision about appeals is probably necessary in view of the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998. 
 The following are examples of the roles that might be included under railway security services: checking luggage at left luggage offices, carrying out searches of stations and checking vehicles at railway car parks. 
 I was asked about the vetting of aviation security staff and pass holders for the channel tunnel. They are subject to counter-terrorist checks through our Department. All other non-security staff will probably have to provide criminal records under new regulations that are being brought forward.

Anne McIntosh: If someone has a criminal record, they may not wish to disclose it. Therefore, the Government are relying on the good will of the applicant. What precautions did the Minister's Department take? Was a search done to discover whether a particular applicant had a criminal record, because someone who has malice aforethought may not wish to disclose that?

John Spellar: That would make that person's application for the job invalid. Consideration would need to be given to making a further check with the Criminal Records Bureau about whether they had an unexpired criminal record. If that were the case, it would be a matter of concern. The police would be responsible for checking that, as it is not currently within the remit of counter-terrorism, which is looking for threats to security. This matter is of concern to the airports and other transport sites and users.

Anne McIntosh: We are greatly concerned about this. Are the Minister and his Home Office colleagues minded to amend the counter-terrorism provisions of the Act? If that is not the case, we will be in a bizarre situation: teachers' records are being investigated, and the entire system has collapsed because of the number of checks that had to be done. It is even more greatly
 in the country's interests that thorough and rigorous checks should be done to avoid an incident happening.
 I regret that investigative journalists have shown how easy it is to breach security. We do not want to pay too much attention to that because we want to prevent copycat incidents. That shows that it is incumbent on the police to ensure that checks are happening. Would the Government amend the legislation to ensure that the police are obliged, and given the resources, to request that the Criminal Records Bureau conduct checks?

John Spellar: The situation with teachers, which relates to the protection of children, is obviously different. I take the hon. Lady's point about checks on criminal records. It is not necessary to change the legislation, but, as I indicated, we will introduce regulations to implement the Bill and will take account of her views on criminal records. We are considering proposals that would ensure that pass holders for restricted zones are required to have criminal records checks.

Don Foster: Before we leave this important issue, I want to place it on the record that I know that the Minister is an eminently practical man who appreciates that there are sometime difficulties between getting a job done and legislative requirements for security vetting. It is important that the Minister makes it clear that in respect of aviation, maritime and railway security activities, the contingencies of time and the need to take action do not prevent everyone engaged in those activities from being subject to full security checks of the type that the hon. Lady has referred to. That applies to the two new clauses and the comparable ones on aviation. It is important not to pretend to the public using the aviation, railway or maritime services that it is possible to have 100 per cent. security support through the check-in regime.
 The Minister will know from his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I have during the past few months sought greater clarification on implementation of the port marine safety codes. The Government required that implementation nearly two years ago, but several ports still have not complied. Action is not being taken against those ports—perhaps, again, for reasons of time. We can therefore never have the full security that we would like, and the Minister has given us a good reason why that is so.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is being slightly negative. Continuing improvement is happening, and there is a continuing refinement of the procedures to ensure that more and more people are checked in the shortest possible time. Levels of scrutiny are therefore steadily increasing.

Don Foster: If the Minister interpreted me as being too negative, I apologise because that was not my intention. I was trying to explain that I understood that we need, on occasion, to get on with the job rather than spending our time ensuring that those doing the job have every certificate. It is a difficult balance to strike.
 The Minister will be aware of a number of breaches of airside security, which happen at the most 
 vulnerable part of the airport. I continue to be concerned that it is possible for people without security clearance to be allowed airside without full supervision. We are all aware that full supervision is almost impossible. I suspect that we will discuss that at another time and place.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I want to know whether he has given an assurance to the Committee that there would not need to be a change in the law. I understood him to say that there would need to be a change in the law to extend the counter-terrorism provisions so that positive instructions would be given to the police to ensure that there would be a check on criminal records by the Criminal Records Bureau prior to an applicant taking up his appointment. I accept that that would lead to difficulties for new teachers, but it is extraordinary that we could face a fairly major disaster because of the current loophole.
 The Minister said that criminal checks will be made, particularly on new applicants who apply initially for aviation and maritime services and, we hope, for railway services in future. Only taking the word of the applicant is, I regret, insufficient. Have I understood correctly that the right hon. Gentleman has assured us that a full check will be made by the Criminal Records Bureau without the need for the law to be changed?

John Spellar: for full possession of a pass to enter a restricted zone, we have powers to require police record checks. We will bring in regulations. That is a different issue from the listing of companies, which we are now discussing.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 20 - Railway security services

The following shall be inserted after section 121 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43) (security: inspection)— 
 ''121A Railway security services: approved providers 
 (1) In this section ''railway security service'' means a process or activity carried out for the purpose of— 
 (a) complying with a requirement of an instruction under section 119, or 
 (b) facilitating a person's compliance with a requirement of an instruction under section 119. 
 (2) Regulations may provide for the Secretary of State to maintain a list of persons who are approved by him for the provision of a particular railway security service. 
 (3) The regulations may— 
 (a) prohibit the provision of a railway security service by a person who is not listed in respect of that service; 
 (b) prohibit the use or engagement for the provision of a railway security service of a person who is not listed in respect of that service; 
 (c) create a criminal offence; 
 (d) make provision about application for inclusion in the list (including provision about fees); 
 (e) make provision about the duration and renewal of entries on the list (including provision about fees); 
 (f) make provision about training or qualifications which persons who apply to be listed or who are listed are required to undergo or possess; 
 (g) make provision about removal from the list which shall include provision for appeal; 
 (h) make provision about the inspection of activities carried out by listed persons; 
 (i) confer functions on the Secretary of State or on a specified person; 
 (j) confer jurisdiction on a court. 
 (4) Regulations under subsection (3)(c)— 
 (a) may not provide for a penalty on summary conviction greater than a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, 
 (b) may not provide for a penalty of imprisonment on conviction on indictment greater than imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (whether or not accompanied by a fine), and 
 (c) may create a criminal offence of purporting, with intent to deceive, to do something as a listed person or of doing something, with intent to deceive, which purports to be done by a listed person. 
 (5) An instruction under section 119 may— 
 (a) include a requirement to use a listed person for the provision of a railway security service; 
 (b) provide for all or part of the instruction not to apply or to apply with modified effect where a listed person provides a railway security service. 
 (6) Regulations under this section— 
 (a) may make different provision for different cases, 
 (b) may include incidental, supplemental or transitional provision, 
 (c) shall be made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, 
 (d) shall not be made unless the Secretary of State has consulted organisations appearing to him to represent persons affected by the regulations, and 
 (e) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of resolution of either House of Parliament.'' '.—[Mr. Spellar.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 23 - Railways in London: information

'(1) The enactments listed in subsection (2) shall not prevent or restrict the provision of information to the Public Private Partnership Agreement Arbiter appointed under section 225(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c.29). 
 (2) Those enactments are— 
 (a) section 133 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (c.41), 
 (b) section 174 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c.39), 
 (c) section 10 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (c.38), 
 (d) section 19 of the Competition Act 1980 (c.21), 
 (e) section 101 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c.12), 
 (f) section 74 of the Airports Act 1986 (c.31), 
 (g) section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (c.43), 
 (h) section 206 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (c.56), 
 (i) section 204 of the Water Resources Act 1991 (c.57), 
 (j) section 145 of the Railways Act 1993 (c.43), 
 (k) section 55 of the Competition Act 1998 (c.41), 
 (l) section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000 (c.27), and 
 (m) section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c.40).'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Spellar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The clause is fairly straightforward. It will allow the London Underground public-private partnership arbiter to receive information from bodies, such as statutory regulators, to help him meet his statutory duties. At present, section 235 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 allows the arbiter to share information that he has gathered with bodies such as the statutory regulators, and to assist them to meet their statutory duties, but interestingly enough it does not give him reciprocal rights to any information that they have gathered. Both the arbiter and the Government believe that that oversight is likely to weaken the effectiveness of the arbiter's office. 
 The officer of the arbiter is vital to the integrity of London Underground PPP arrangements, which we discussed at some length earlier this morning. For that office to be effective, the arbiter must have access to good-quality, specific information about relevant businesses. It is usual legislative practice that a new statutory authority, such as the regulator, may both release specific information to other authorities and receive relevant information from them. The new clause will put the PPP arbiter on a par with other regulators in that respect.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful for that information. The fact that the new clause has been drafted is an admission by the Government that there may be circumstances in which the arbiter and official regulator will be called on to act. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the circumstances in which the arbiter has a role to play?
 I am not familiar with all the regulations and Acts listed in the new clause, so perhaps he would be good enough to share with the Committee what information it is envisaged would be passed to the arbiter, as set out in the enactments. I imagine that most of the information would relate to companies and that it would be of a commercial and sensitive nature. Presumably, the confidentiality and sensitivity of that information would be guaranteed. It would be helpful if we understood precisely the circumstances under which the arbiter would act. What would be the consequences if the Committee were not minded to approve new clause 23? What is the role of the arbiter vis-à-vis the Office of the Rail Regulator? How would they work together?

John Spellar: The hon. Lady invites me to speculate on the possibility of the Committee's not voting in favour of the clause. I am reminded of Damon Runyon's dictum that in life the race may not always go to the swiftest, nor victory to the strongest—but that is the way to bet.
 The hon. Lady asked about different kinds of information. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 allows the arbiter to release information about specific individuals and their businesses to regulators of other industries to help them fulfil their statutory functions. Unfortunately, it does not allow him to receive such information from them. That relates to costs. For the arbiter to make comparisons with costs in other industries is a crucial part of his role in seeking to 
 deal with disputes between the parties to the agreement. 
 The PPP contracts allow for seven-and-a-half-year periodic reviews, under which the arbiter would judge the appropriate price for any adjustments to the contract. The clause would enable him to make the appropriate judgment. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 25 - Seat belts: delivery drivers

'The following shall be substituted for section 14(2)(b)(i) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) (seat belts: exceptions: delivery drivers)— 
 ''(i) the driver of or a passenger in a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for carrying goods, while on a journey which does not exceed the prescribed distance and which is undertaken for the purpose of delivering or collecting any thing,''.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Jamieson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Requirement for adults to wear adult seat belts—
'.—A person driving or riding in the front or rear seat of a vehicle constructed or adapted for the delivery of goods or mail to consumer addressees, as the case may be, while engaged in making local rounds or deliveries or collections shall wear an adult seat belt.'.

David Jamieson: I understand the intention behind the proposal to remove the exemption for drivers and passengers in vehicles undertaking deliveries. However, new clause 24 would completely remove their existing exemption. We do not believe that that is
 right. An exemption for travel over very short distances is justified. The current exemption in section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is intended for the users of goods vehicles undertaking local rounds of collections and deliveries—for example, making frequent stops on household rubbish collections or doorstep milk deliveries. It would be unreasonable to require seat belts to be used every time such a vehicle moved a few yards to its next stop. That part of the existing legislation is not well understood and there are some van and goods vehicle drivers who are unclear about the intention behind the exemption.
 That is why we have put forward new clause 25, which proposes a suitable change in the wording of the 1988 Act. If it becomes law, a new regulation will follow setting a maximum distance that may be travelled in goods vehicles before users are required to use their seat belt. The distance will be established after consultation with interested parties, and we envisage that it will be quite short. Apart from providing clarity for users, that would also provide clarity for the police, making it easier for them to enforce exemptions. I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will not press new clause 24.

John Randall: Perhaps I should declare an interest. The company of which I am a director has delivery vehicles—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.